Sunday, September 03, 2006

Is Iran Next?



It looks as if the United States is doing the groundwork for an attack on Iran:


British troops are mobilizing on the Iraq border with Iran and have downgraded to even lighter, more flexible, and quicker equipment by giving up their Challenger tanks and Warrior armoured fighting vehicles in favour of stripped-down Landrovers armed with machineguns and “will remain constantly on the move and be re-supplied by air drops.”

Is the US now preparing, and if so how seriously, to “go it alone” by taking military action against Iran?

It is no longer a secret that the administration of US President George W Bush has been methodically paving the way toward a bombing strike against Iran.

“According to credible media reports, the Pentagon had drawn up plans for an intensive air campaign to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons complexes.”

There’s been a lot of reporting of “Plans” to attack Iran, but the US probably has military plans for invading every nation on Earth. All just in case. What matters is whether these plans have entered the Operational phase. Let’s take a look: Al Jazeera is getting antsy over this and thinks that Israel is operational and is getting ready to go it alone with Iran.

Other than a few commentaries, I can find no hard evidence that the US is bent on attacking Iran. That there are plans to do so, there’s no doubt. What I do find is a lot of things pointing at the Bush administrations leanings.

Condi Rice has just downplayed the necessity of staying in Iraq and the winnability of the war, (in spite of Bush’s declaration that the war won’t stop as long as he’s President, which may be true, Iran may not require many invasion troops) there has been no loud outcry at the constant time extensions granted by the UN to Iran for compliance, indicating that it doesn’t matter, we know they won’t and we have special plans for them anyway, Israel is being supplied with Bunker Busters, Israel has 2 new German made, nuke-capable subs, and Rumsfeld made a rousing speech about the new Fascism and the repeat of WW II appeasement, as was done with Hitler. More and more there are references to Irans Pres. Ahmadinijad as being the same as Hitler and Islamic aggression as Fascism.


Go read the whole thing. It is worth your time. But, here's the kicker, something for you to chew over while you wait for the page to load:


... there is certainly precedent for attacking Iran, and there is certainly a glaring need. Now here’s the big one. If Iran were put out of action, we could win the war in Iraq! It’s Iran that has been promoting sectarian violence and backing up the Shiites to bring about civil war there, as well as killing plenty of our soldiers. Stop Iran from interfering and we stabilize Iraq, and Bush and the Republicans look great once again.

3 comments:

Jason Pappas said...

That last point is important. I'd wish more people would think about Iran's role in Iraq's problem. It makes sense to put Iraq on the backburner and focus on Iran, because Iran is now the biggest problem and Iraq can't be solved if Iran continues to support Iraqi insurgents.

Now that Iran temporarily blew its forward forces in Lebanon, there is a window of opportunity to move against Iran by both Israel & the USA. Indeed, Hebollah being Iranian operatives gives us just another rationale.

Pastorius said...

Well said, Jason. And, one has to wonder if Bush was trying to draw Iran out and get them to expend some of their energy.

Likely not though. We haven't seen any evidence of good strategizing from the Bush camp for quite awhile.

Epaminondas said...

Any such plan had BETTER take into account the effect of attacks here.

DEPEND on that happening.

Relentless decapitation strikes - people... for months and months and months.... or don't bother. Do we have the intelligence to back such a plan?